VZCZCXYZ0018
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHC #0916 3041549
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 311532Z OCT 07
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK IMMEDIATE 0000
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA IMMEDIATE 0000

UNCLAS STATE 150916 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV UNGA
SUBJECT: GUIDANCE:  UN ILLICIT SA/LW TRAFFICKING RESOLUTION 
 
 
¶1.  (U) This is an action request (see paras. 2 and 3). 
 
¶2.  (SBU) Washington has considered USDEL's request for 
guidance on joining consensus on the draft resolution 
regarding "The Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons 
in All Its Aspects" put forward by the delegations from 
Colombia, Japan, and South Africa.  There are several 
elements of the resolution that, if not corrected or deleted, 
will prevent the United States from joining consensus. 
(Note:  As originally written, this guidance cable reversed 
the USG position on UN Reforms that began in 2001.  In 2001, 
it was agreed that the USG would limit its participation in a 
review conference on the Program of Action for Small Arms and 
Light Weapons to one time only.  In July 2006, DNSA Crouch, 
U/S Joseph, and A/S Silverberg agreed to reject a UK proposal 
to have additional meetings on the Program of Action under 
different titles.  The agreement reached within the 
interagency was that meetings under different names, e.g., 
biennial meeting of States Parties, etc., in fact constitute 
de facto review conferences 
 and would be rejected.  The USG voted no on this resolution 
last year, precisely for this reason.) 
 
a.  (SBU) USDEL should be alert to, and oppose, efforts to 
insert text that calls for any review or biennial meetings on 
this subject, on the basis that review meetings are 
unnecessary.  Pursuant to the U.S. policy of opposing new 
mandates, in particular review conferences, biennial meetings 
and the like, if the final text calls for review meetings of 
the recently concluded Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) 
meeting on brokering, or for additional meetings to consider 
implementation of the Program of Action, USDEL should call 
for a vote and vote no. 
 
b.  (SBU) USDEL should work to delete PP6 as now formulated 
and re-insert previously deleted language, "Reiterating the 
significance of the International Instrument to Enable States 
to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, 
Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons."  If the delegation is 
unsuccessful, USDEL should vote no. 
 
c.  (SBU) USDEL should work to delete the language "as the 
main framework for measures in the activities of the 
international community to prevent, combat and eradicate the 
illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its 
aspects, beyond 2006," in PP10.  If the delegation is 
unsuccessful in deleting this language, USDEL should vote no. 
 
d.  (SBU) USDEL should work to delete OP4 and OP4bis.  If the 
delegation is unsuccessful in deleting these paragraphs, 
USDEL should vote no. 
 
e.  (SBU) USDEL should work to delete the language in OP5, 
"well in advance of the next Biennial Meeting of States;"  If 
the delegation is unsuccessful in deleting this phrase, USDEL 
should vote no.  However, if the delegation is successful, 
then the delegation should seek to add the phrase "and to 
highlight their implementation challenges and opportunities" 
(which would then be deleted from the end of OP7) to the end 
of OP5. 
 
f.  (SBU) USDEL should work to delete OP7 in its entirety 
except for the clause noted in the guidance paragraph above. 
If the delegation is unsuccessful, USDEL should vote no. 
 
g.  (SBU) USDEL should work to delete OP8.  If the delegation 
is unsuccessful, USDEL should vote no. 
 
h.  (SBU) USDEL should work to delete OP14.  If the 
delegation is unsuccessful, USDEL should vote no. 
 
Washington considers these points to be red lines. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) USDEL should propose the following language 
modifications to improve the text of this resolution.  USDEL 
is instructed to join consensus regardless of acceptance of 
these modifications, assuming the text does not cross any of 
the red lines above: 
 
a.  (SBU) Delete the phrase in PP2 "and full" before 
"implementation" as the phrase makes the statement too broad; 
 
b.  (SBU) Modify the language in PP7 from "that the 
international community should address urgently" to "that 
each State and Region should address urgently;" 
 
c.  (SBU) Modify the language in PP8 to "Emphasizing the 
importance of comprehensive national reporting on 
implementation of the Programme of Action with a view to 
facilitating international cooperation and the rendering of 
assistance where such assistance is needed;" 
 
d.  (SBU) Modify OP1 to read "Encourages relevant 
initiatives, including those of the United Nations, other 
international organizations, and regional and subregional 
organizations for the successful implementation . . . "  All 
initiatives are not relevant or helpful, and there is 
questionable value in soliciting initiatives from NGOs and 
"civil society" in general; 
 
e.  (SBU) Delete the phrase in OP2, "among others," as it 
does not make sense in this context; 
 
f.  (SBU) Modify the language in OP9 to conclude with "where 
appropriate." 
 
g.  (SBU) Modify the language in OP11 to state "Recognizes 
the necessity of States with limited resources to identify 
needs and request support accordingly from interested States 
in the implementation of the Programme of Action to make 
international cooperation and assistance more effective." 
 
¶4.  (U) Questions regarding the subject of brokering should 
be directed to Deborah Carroll, PM/DDTC, at (202) 663-2809. 
All other questions can be coordinated through Sho Morimoto, 
PM/WRA, at (202) 663-0290.  Department thanks USDEL for its 
assistance and hard work in attending to the formulation of 
this resolution. 
RICE